R&R Revision & Response (revacc-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- You received a RAST revise-and-resubmit and must plan the revision
- You need to draft the point-by-point response to the editor and referees
- Referees disagree and you must triage which concerns are binding
- New analyses change tables and the manuscript needs re-aligning
- An analytical paper's referee disputes an assumption or a proposition
An R&R at RAST is a strong signal — treat it accordingly
Because RAST often decides on the first round, an R&R is a meaningful vote of confidence rather than routine. That raises the stakes on getting the revision right: you may not get a third round, so resolve the editor's first-order concerns substantively, not rhetorically. Do the analytical (or modeling) work before drafting the letter — a RAST R&R turns on whether you have actually strengthened identification, the economic channel, construct measurement, or the model, not on rhetorical skill.
Triage the referee points
-
First-order (must resolve): endogeneity/identification threats, an unidentified channel, fragile or invalid construct measurement, sample-construction concerns; for analytical papers, a load-bearing assumption a referee rejects or a proposition whose generality is questioned. These usually require new analyses (a cleaner setting, additional diagnostics, alternative proxies, falsification tests) or new modeling (relaxing an assumption, an extension, a robustness proposition).
-
Second-order (resolve or reason): additional robustness, exposition, framing, extra citations. Implement where cheap; otherwise explain clearly.
-
Conflicting referees: do not whipsaw the paper. State the trade-off and follow the editor's steer; note where you sided with one referee and why.
The editor's letter is the binding map — it tells you which points are first-order. Address those first.
Draft the response letter
-
One point, one response. Quote each comment, then give your response and point to the exact change (section, table number, new analysis, new proposition).
-
Show the new evidence. For identification/measurement concerns, present the new table or diagnostic in the letter (or a response appendix), not just a promise. For analytical concerns, show the revised result.
-
Be candid about limits. Where a concern cannot be fully resolved, state what the design (or model) can and cannot deliver, and add the scope condition to the paper.
-
Respectful and specific. Thank referees, concede valid points, defend with evidence — never dismiss.
Keep the manuscript consistent and anonymized
Re-align variable names, hypothesis labels, table numbers, and the contribution statement after the revision so the paper still reads as one story. Keep it double-anonymized for the next round (no acknowledgements or self-citation leaks introduced during revision). Refresh the data-provenance trail so it regenerates all revised exhibits; confirm any current data/code expectation on the official page (待核实; 检索于 2026-06).
Checklist
Anti-patterns
-
Writing the letter before doing the work.
-
Treating all referees equally instead of following the editor's priorities.
-
Promising robustness instead of showing it.
-
Cosmetic responses to first-order identification or measurement concerns.
-
Squandering a strong signal: under-investing in an R&R that RAST rarely grants.
-
Leaking anonymity through acknowledgements or self-cites added during revision.
Output format
【Editor first-order asks】[...] — resolved by ...
【Referee triage】R1/R2/R3 first-order vs second-order
【New work done】identification / measurement / falsification / modeling ...
【Response letter】per-point, change-anchored draft status
【Conflicts reconciled】editor's steer followed where ...
【Consistency & anonymity】manuscript re-aligned; still double-blind
【Next step】resubmit via Editorial Manager (revacc-submission for preflight)
